FOZ & FAJARDO v People of the Philippines

Subject: Jurisdiction determined by the allegations in the complaint

FACTS:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the
decision of the CA, which affirmed the decision of the RTC Branch 23 in Iloilo City, finding
petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime libel.
That on 1994, in Iloilo, the accused (herein petitioners, respectively) Vicente Foz, columnist and
Danny Fajardo, editor-publisher of Panay News, a daily publication with considerable circulation
in the City of Iloilo.
Dr. Edgar Portigo was the subject of the libelous article. The said article narrates how the wrong
diagnosis of Dr. Portigo led to the death of a certain Lita Payunan, the wife of an employee of
the Local San Miguel Corporation, where Portigo was the company physician. The brief facts of
the article are as follows:
Lita Payunan was diagnosed by Dr. Portigo with Rectum Myoma and was advised to
undergo an operation. The first operation was done with by a doctor not of Portigo’s
recommendation which allegedly made him angry. The first operation did not contribute
to the condition of the patient so she was readmitted to the hospital, then eventually
re-operated. That second time, the surgeon was from the recommendation of Dr.
Portigo.
The family was devastated after the second operation, discovering that the patient’s
‘vagina and anus [were] closed and a hole with a catheter punched on her right
side.’(sic)
She was then informed that she had cancer.
Dr. Portigo recommended for another operation – which would bore another hole on
her left side, but they refused. The family turned it down as it was a ‘waste of money
and the disease was already on a terminal state.’
Lita died shortly thereafter.
The article (seemingly in the form of a letter) gave sympathies to the family of the diseased, but
portrayed Dr. Portigo as one who cares only for money and profit, gaining some P150,000.00
from Payunan.
“Dr. Portigo was portrayed as wanting in high-dense of professional integrity, trust and
responsibility expected of him as a physician, which imputation and insinuation as both
accused new were entirely false and malicious and without foundation in fact and
therefore highly libelous, offensive and derogatory to the good name, character and
reputation of the said Dr. Edgar Portigo.”
Upon arraignment in 1995, the petitioners pleaded not guilty. The RTC of Iloilo rendered a
decision in 1997 finding Danny Fajardo and Vicente Foz Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
the crime of Libel (Art. 353 & 355)
Petitioner’s Motion for reconsideration was also denied by the CA in 1998. It affirmed in toto
the decision of the RTC. Hence this petition.
Among othersi, petitioners raise for the first timeii the issue that the information charging them
with libel did not contain allegations sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the RTC of Iloilo City. iii
ISSUE: Whether the RTC of Iloilo acquired jurisdiction on the case, since the venue where the
act was allegedly made is an essential element in the filing of a libel case. (See Art. 360 in
relation to 353)
RULING: No, in the case of Agbayani v. Sayo, the rules on venue in Article 360 were restated as
follows:

1. Whether the offended party is a public official or a private person, the criminal action
may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the libelous
article is printed and first published.
2. If the offended party is a private individual, the criminal action may also be filed in the
Court of First Instance of the province where he actually resided at the time of the
commission of the offense.
3. If the offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at the time of the
commission of the offense, the action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of
Manila.
4. If the offended party is a public officer holding office outside of Manila, the action may
be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he held office at the
time of the commission of the offense.

Hence, the applicable rule in the case of Dr. Portigo (is 1 or 2) is that he may file in the CFI of the
province where the article is first printed and first published, or, where he actually resided at
the time of the commission of the crime.
Note: Nowhere on the information filed by Dr. Portigo was it alleged that Panay News was first
printed and published in Iloilo City. Neither did it allege that Dr. Portigo resided in Iloilo
at the time of the filing of complaint, to warrant the filing in the RTC of Iloilo.
“It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases the
offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients took place within
the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory
where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed
therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense
allegedly committed outside of that limited territory. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court
over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. And
once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence
adduced during the trial show that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court
should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.”1

i
Petitioners say that prosecution failed to prove malice; that Fajardo as the editor is not liable since the opinion of
his columnist does not reflect his;
ii
The rule is settled that an objection based on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the offense
charged may be raised or considered motu proprio by the court at any stage of the proceedings or on appeal.
Moreover, jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case cannot be conferred upon the court by the
accused, by express waiver or otherwise, since such jurisdiction is conferred by the sovereign authority which
organized the court, and is given only by law in the manner and form prescribed by law.
iii
Which the Court finds that the petitioners are not precluded from doing so.

1
Macasaet v. People G.R. No. 156747, February 23, 2005, 452 SCRA 255, 271, citing Uy v. Court of Appeals, 276
SCRA 367 (1997).